Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by TZ001, Apr 10, 2019.
As lowbrow as it gets. Congrats Anna on sinking to new depths.
To be honest I’d much rather see Kim Kardashian on the cover of cover than people like Hailey Baldwin... It doesn’t come as a surprise at all!
I just find it very hard to see her on this magazine, or any other magazine in general, and being celebrated as such an important person in the world. Don't get me wrong, it has nothing to do with her being a reality star (hey, I used to love Paris and Nicole back in the day), but her promotion of body image and all the strange and dangerous weight-loss she and her family are promoting are just totally unacceptable. No one is holding her account for it, people are just celebrating her for it. It is a strange world and there are so many inspiring women out there today. So why her?
The heat in this thread just proofs that how Anna is getting what she want.
For how long we got a thread running over 6 pages? if this little spot can get so much noisy, u can image how much heat Anna and Vogue get from the whole US market.
liking her or not is subjective, Kim as a major trend and an icon of current fashion world is definitely objective. So u do the math, and tell me why Anna choose her.
I'm not familiar with the Seuss reference myself, thought you meant something else:
Would you like her in a boat? - Pamela Anderson's sex tape
Would you like her in a coat? - 'All fur coat, no knickers', a famous British ism. And in fact, Kim had been photographed like that before, lol.
I never look at any of the social media from the Kardashians or watch the TV show or pay attention to them in any way so don't really have an opinion. I could really care less. However, as a fashion editorial or even a celebrity feature, this is completely bland.
Waiting for you Momma Ru!
Bland just like any of her sisters
We could be here all day debating the social merits of a bunch of women who make a living through the media. What this cover says to me is that it's been a long time since US Vogue was the one setting fashions, trends or standards.
Celebrities used to need Vogue. Now Vogue needs the celebrities.
And most of the ones turning up on the cover these days are seeking validation for the shams that pass for their family/personal relationships. Vogue is just another media channel where celebrities present their chosen image, and Vogue hoovers up the views for survival. Throw in some late-in-the-day concessions to minorities for a round of applause online, and that's your lot.
I don't think any magazines are really setting fashion trends or standards anymore, to be fair. I buy magazines regularly (and not just fashion magazines) because I've always been partial to hard copies of things vs. digital editions (movies, books, etc. included), a beautiful photograph on the page is so much better than swiping by it on instagram. And I love flipping through some of the magazines I've kept from years ago, seeing a reflection of what was "in vogue". But I don't really look to Vogue to innovate. How can it? The world moves faster and the internet and fast fashion have democratized style. Magazines take months to go from conception to finished issue on the newsstand. Someone on instagram or a street style blog will get their first. Vogue and really any magazine's value these days is in putting the money and talent into creating original content that reflects what's going on. Shining a spotlight on designers who need the leg up, highlighting a curated selection of cultural events or the arts. And to be able to do that, they need revenue to justify the the expense. Putting a model (who, by the way, are often also reflecting arguably less attainable body types and beauty standards than the Kardiashians) just doesn't make sense. Kim Kardashian on the cover of US Vogue is going to sell better than Mariacarla on the cover, as much as I wish that wasn't the case. And more importantly the social media and online content surrounding it will have a bigger reach with Kim (her 73 questions video was uploaded 3 days ago and is already the 6th most watched video ever on Vogue's youtube. It will very soon overtake Rihanna's makeup tutorial. That matters, whether we like it or not. Vogue needs the revenue. Even if the magazine is no longer groundbreaking, their contributions to fashion are tremendous. Think of how many people Anna helped achieve career success? Think of the CFDA/Vogue fashion fund, think of the Met fashion/costume institute. Frankly, I've started to care less and less about the cover, and more about the editorials and articles inside and the content they create for online platforms. If putting Kim on the cover helps them fund RuPaul content inside, I'll hardly hold it against them.
ugh the 10 minute edit cut off is the death of me. Anytime I read back a post after the fact I find some pretty embarrassing grammar and/or spelling mistakes.
Why? The cutoff used to be shorter in the past, lol. I'm very much happy with it. That, and the auto-saved drafts!
I imagine Vogue will delay in releasing the digital issue just to ride on the hype and build up more anticipation.
This is now the 4th headline-grabbing cover of the year, so I think it's quite apparent what is happening here. Many on here think I'm biased when it comes to US Vogue but I'm not. Their situation is very unique. Of big 4, they're the one plagued most by money troubles. Not a month goes past when there is an article on the precarious financial state of American CN and American print in general. In short, it's so bad that the mainstream Glamour just about ceased print publication.
Yes, their March issue still had the most print pages of all the international Vogues which was probably more of a statement than anything else, but in general the magazine is run by a company in the red. You pick that up when you flip through the magazine. They're the only one of the big 4 who don't shoot original and exclusive content for their front section, who can't afford a beauty story in each issue. Supplements are as archaic as dinosaurs at this magazine, and even when you look at the advertisers in US Vogue, it's nowhere near as diverse as it is in the other editions. And while there's a logical explanation for every point, ultimately the bottom line is that value and investment in print is decreasing x3 faster in America than in other regions. And the reasoning is really quite simple. American print had it's golden era easily 2 decades ago, when most of the other countries were still in infancy, print wise. As I recall US Vogue was the first to formally switch to celebrities in favour of models and thereby blurring the line between advertising and editorial, to look for different ways to expand the magazine with collaborations and events (CFDA Fund was started in 2003, and Fashion's Night Out in 2009 etc.) So obviously the majority of American readers would be saturated with print by now, especially with digital as an alternative. Thing is, Vogue desperately needs the investment to even have a thread title on this forum. To that end I can understand why their covers are of the 'trending' variety. I do still deplore the choice of this woman on the cover, but if it helps then ruffle up more advertisers which will ultimately lead to more pages, a bigger budget, more content, then maybe we'll just have to accept that.
I feel the same all the time here Love your argument because isn't violent and you have a lot of valid points. I would love to see my favorites models on the cover of Vogue too, but since 2002 is full of celebs (the gifted ones and the polemics), and you can't do anything to change it. Anna has had a big influence in fashion (it looks that Kanye has more than her for introducing this family everywhere), but she's loosing respect for the ones that used to love her, the people wich truly loves fashion and doesn't explode it to become more popular or having more likes in social media. In 10 or 20 years the people will forget these reallity stars (as they did with the supermodels of the 1985-2010 period), and these instastars will became poor rich people. Meanwhile the fashion lovers will remember the Lindas, the Giseles or the Naomis because their work will trascend the test of times. We love to see vintage issues of any edition of Vogue or others, not the current ones. I won't miss this decade at all.
PS: SORRY FOR WRITING LIKE AN 8 YEAR OLD, ENGLISH ISN'T MY NATURAL LANGUAGE, AND I WISH I HAD THE TIME AND RESOURCES TO LEARN MORE.
By Annie Leibovitz
Source: How the World Fell Head Over Heels for RuPaul
Ru Paul by Annie Leibovitz, a truly glorious and historical moment, and I'm sure he will cherish it. I know Leibovitz is not the most popular on here, but it is almost every pop icon or politician's dream to be photographed by her.
As for the actual image, I'm glad it doesn't look campy or tacky. It's just Ru Paul looking immaculate. But then of course Vogue had to go and muck it all up with this headline:
'Ru Paul on his new Netflix show, camp, and having an open marriage'
Smh. Because open marriages are such a novelty. Next month in Vogue. 'Triumph After Tragedy: January Jones on having a child out of wedlock'
When does this issue hit newsstands?
Imagine THAT photo on the cover, damn
Review (196 pages)
Holding Court (11 Pages)
Ph: Mikael Jansson
Stylist: Tonne Goodman
Celeb: Kim K
Where the Wild Things Are (6 pages)
Allesandro Michele article
Ph; Tierney Gearon
Sittings Editor: Lawren Howell
Cast: Allesandro Michele & Charli XCX
Breaking Camp (10 Pages)
MET Gala ed
Ph: Ethan James Green
Sittings Editor: Phyllis Posnick
Cast: Keiynan Lonsdale, Edie Campbell, Ezra Miller
Full Feather (8 pages)
Ph: Jamie Hawkesworth
Stylist: Camilla Nickerson
Models: Nora Attal, Binx Walton & Vittoria Ceretti
Dawn to Dusk (8 pages)
Ph: Daniel Jackson
Stylist: Elin Svahn
Cast: Grace Hartzel & Marlon Magnee
Suit Yourself (8 pages)
Ph: Theo Sion
Stylist: Tonne Goodman
Models: Adut Akech & Anok Yai
Esme Creed-Miles by Joyce Ng
Bella Hadid in Index by Sean Thomas styled by Jorden Bickham
Ru Paul by Annie Leibovitz
Keri Russell & Adam Driver by Annie Leibovitz
I noticed earlier today on newsstand.co.uk that the Kim K cover was already on display, following on from the Bieber US Vogue cover, with an arrival date of 17/04/19 (for whatever new issue will arrive).
I wonder if they're skipping another issue when it comes to UK imports, like they did with the Reese Witherspoon cover, which was out for only a few days before being swiftly replaced by the Bieber issue.
I imagine they'd want this cover on the newsstands as soon as possible just to capitalise. Rule of thumb seems to be if you see it on sale you must buy it instantly, or else.
I just wish more brick & mortar outlets in the UK could get the issue sooner. This idea of getting the print issue 2/3 weeks after the digital issue was released is silly. I mean, these magazines are not coming here by ship, are they?